<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (12) TMI 446 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114780</link>
    <description>Canned mushrooms in brine were examined for classification under Chapter 20 or Chapter 7 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, with Note 1 to Chapter 20 excluding products put in provisional preservative solutions. The Tribunal observed that the assessee&#039;s technical material suggested the mushrooms were only provisionally preserved and not in a ready-to-eat condition, and held that the original authority&#039;s view treating them as outside Chapter 20 was supportable. It also noted that the earlier precedent relied on below did not consider provisional preservation and was not decisive. No final classification was determined, as the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 10:44:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 446 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114780</link>
      <description>Canned mushrooms in brine were examined for classification under Chapter 20 or Chapter 7 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, with Note 1 to Chapter 20 excluding products put in provisional preservative solutions. The Tribunal observed that the assessee&#039;s technical material suggested the mushrooms were only provisionally preserved and not in a ready-to-eat condition, and held that the original authority&#039;s view treating them as outside Chapter 20 was supportable. It also noted that the earlier precedent relied on below did not consider provisional preservation and was not decisive. No final classification was determined, as the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>